6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement

Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

Velocity Profile Effects on Multipath Ultrasonic Meters

Gregor Brown, Don Augenstein, Terry Cousins
Caldon Ultrasonics
NuFlo Measurement Systems

Tiebridge Farm, North Houghton 1070 Banksville Avenue

STOCKBRIDGE PITTSBURGH PA 15216-3054
Hants SO20 6LQ USA
UK Tel: +1 412 341 9920
Tel: +44 (0) 870 850 8855 Fax: +1 412 341 9951
Fax: +44 (0) 870 850 5558 E-mail: augusteidr@nuflotech.com
E-mail: browngj@nuflotech.com cousinst@nuflotech.com

Abstract

Ultrasonic meters based on the transit time principle have a number of recognised benefits
relative to more traditional methods of flow measurement. In recent years a new generation
of ultrasonic meters have emerged and the technology is now being widely accepted for
custody transfer applications in the oil and gas industry.

It is generally understood that improved meter performance can be achieved by employing

more ultrasonic measurement paths. However, there are also practical and financial
limitations to consider, and this will influence the decisions that the flow meter designers,
buyers and users must make. It is not always obvious to the user or buyer of ultrasonic
flowmeters what is to be lost or gained in terms of performance by decreasing or increasing
the number of measurement paths. This is because the issues are complex are further
confused by differences in competing designs.

This paper provides a review of the influence of the number of paths, and path configuration,
on the performance of transit time ultrasonic flow meters for oil custody transfer duties. The
paper considers the importance of profile changes with both Reynolds number and with
upstream pipe configuration. The data presented is taken from an analytical evaluation of
various path configurations chosen to represent a range of meters that employ between two
and eight paths. Where appropriate, experimental data has been included in support of the
analytical results.

1. INTRODUCTION

The first practical ultrasonic meter designs typically employed only one or two measurement
paths on the same diameter of the pipe cross-section. It was recognised as early as the
1950’s and 60’s that this approach was susceptible to significant errors, owing to the shape of
the velocity profile. Kritz [1] introduced a Reynolds number dependent correction function in
his 1955 paper and suggested that moving the path off-centre might reduce the influence of
changes in velocity profile with Reynolds number. Five years later, Fischbacker [2] published
the results of a detailed experimental programme demonstrating the influence of upstream
bends and other pipe fittings on the performance of single-path meters. His results showed
that errors of as much as 10% were possible with single diameter paths in distorted flows.

In 1975, Baker and Thompson published a paper [3] showing that the optimal position for a
single path was about halfway along the radius from the centre of the pipe. Baker and
Thompson also stated that adding a second path, parallel to the first on the opposite side of
the pipe, could improve performance with respect to distorted flow profiles and swirl.

Even before Baker and Thompson published the paper describing their two-path design,
Westinghouse had already developed their LEFM ultrasonic flowmeter, which used four

1
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

chordal paths [4]. The developments at Westinghouse had recognised the potential problems
of distorted flows at the outset and utilised the 4-path design to minimise these to a practical
level. Caldon acquired the 4-path LEFM technology from Westinghouse in 1989 and in
addition to making improvements to the system, Caldon have also introduced 2 and 8-path
models to the product line. Figure 1 shows an illustration of the 4-path meter produced by
Caldon.

Figure 1 An Illustration of a 4-Path Caldon Ultrasonic Flowmeter (LEFM 240C)

2. THE INFLUENCE OF PATH CONFIGURATION ON PERFORMANCE

The aim of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of the performance of different path
configurations. This is done using analytical methods in order to provide a direct comparison
of the different designs. Configurations using 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 paths have been chosen for
analysis as this covers a wide range of designs that are considered suitable for custody
transfer. Where appropriate, experimental data is included to support the analytical results.

2.1. Velocity Profile Effects in Fully Developed Flow

Multipath ultrasonic meters measure velocity on a number of paths and use these velocities
to estimate the mean velocity. As these meters are only sampling the velocity profile at a
limited number of points, the form of the velocity distribution has the potential to create
measurement errors.

In fully developed flow, downstream of long straight sections of pipe, the flow velocity profile
varies as a function of Reynolds number. Therefore changes in velocity and viscosity can
potentially cause non-linearity in the response of an ultrasonic meter.

The influence of the number of paths on non-linearity associated with the shape of the axial
velocity profile in fully developed flow is relatively easy to study analytically. One simple way
to do this is to represent the flow profile by the power law, i.e.

u = (1 − r )1 / n (1)

where u, is the velocity at any point in the pipe normalised with respect to the maximum
velocity, r is the distance from the centre of the pipe as a fraction of the pipe radius, and n
changes the shape of the profile as a function of Reynolds number and pipe roughness. This
approach has previously been applied to the evaluation of 4-path measurement schemes by
Fisher & Spink [6] and Zanker [7].

2
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

Here we show results for 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 path measurements, where the paths are placed
and weighted according to the rules for Gauss-Jacobi integration [8], as illustrated in Figure 2
below. Note that the 2-path Caldon 220CA utilises two paths of a 4-path Gauss-Jacobi
design and that the 8-path Caldon 280C has two paths in each chordal plane of the 4-path
Gauss-Jacobi design.

2-path 2-path 3-path 4-path 5-path 8-path

(Caldon 220CA ) (Caldon 240C) (Caldon 280C)

Figure 2 Schematic Diagrams of the Path Configurations Analysed in this Paper

The measurement error for each meter design has been calculated for profiles with values of
n of between 4 and 14. This covers a very wide range of Reynolds Numbers, as it has been
shown that n = 6 to n = 10 spans a Reynolds number range of 4,000 to 3,200,000 [9]. The
results are shown in Figure 3 below and are summarised in terms of non-linearity over n = 6
to n = 10 in Table 4. It can be observed that for the standard Gauss-Jacobi integration
schemes that linearity is significantly improved when four or five paths are used. However, it
should also be noted that a 2-path arrangement comprising one outer chord and one inner
chord of the 4-path design gives the same linearity as a four path meter in fully developed
flow. It is also interesting to note that in this analysis the 5-path meter design appears slightly
poorer than the 4-path design.
1.00%
2 path (mid radius design)
0.90% 3 path
4 path, 8 path two-plane, and 2 path asymmetric design
Error Relative to True Average Velocity

0.80% 5 path

0.70%

0.60%

0.50%

0.40%

0.30%

0.20%

0.10%

0.00%
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Velocity Profile n Value

Figure 3 Errors in Estimation of the Mean Velocity in Fully Developed Flow

for Various Multipath Flowmeters

Table 4 Summary of Non-Linearity from Data in Figure 3

Calculated non-linearity for n = 6 to n = 10

2-path 2-path 3-path 4-path 5-path 8-path
(LEFM 220CA) (LEFM 240C) (LEFM 240C)
0.19% 0.02% 0.23% 0.02% 0.06% 0.02%

It was stated above that the linearity of a 4-path meter could be achieved with only two paths
if we take one ‘inside’ path and one ‘outside’ path. This approach is the design concept

3
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

applied in the Caldon LEFM 220CA. Figure 4 below shows raw meter factor versus Reynolds
number for a 6-inch Caldon LEFM 220CA flowmeter overlaid on top of the data taken from a
6-inch LEFM 240C. It can be observed that this experimental data confirms that under fully
developed flow conditions the linearity of the 2-path 220CA meter is very similar to that of the
4-path meter.

1.030

1.020 Caldon LEFM 240C, 4 cSt oil

Caldon LEFM 240C, 22 cSt oil
Caldon LEFM 220CA, 6 cSt oil
1.010
Caldon LEFM 220CA, 35 cSt oil

1.000
Meter Factor

0.990

0.980

0.970

0.960

0.950
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Reynolds Number

Figure 4 Linearity Comparison of Caldon LEFM 220CA and 240C Flowmeters

2.2. Sensitivity to Distortions of the Velocity Distribution

Distortions of the velocity distribution occur when flow passes through a pipeline component
such as a valve, an expansion, a bend, a reducer etc. Such components change the shape
of the axial velocity profile and can cause non-axial motion of the fluid, commonly known as
swirl.

Distortions of the velocity distribution can still be present in the flow far downstream of the
components that caused the disturbance. When these distortions cause a change in the
reading of the flowmeter they are known as installation effects.

In situations where a meter is calibrated in a laboratory and then installed in the field,
installation effects can cause measurement errors. Often there is no other measurement to
compare against in the field and therefore there is no way of knowing whether the error is
negative or positive, or how large it is.

If a meter is installed in the field with a volumetric prover then installation effects can be
reduced by in-situ calibration. However, some pipeline components can cause installation
effects that vary with time and these can affect the repeatability and reproducibility or linearity
of the meter factor obtained when the prover is used.

In practice it is common for distortion of the axial velocity profile and swirl to occur at the
same time. However, in order to understand the performance of different ultrasonic meter
designs it is useful to study these two influences separately. It is also worth bearing in mind
that tube bundle flow conditioners are effective for removing swirl but do little to effectively
reshape the axial velocity profile.

4
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

2.2.1. Distortions of the Axial Velocity Profile

Distortions of the axial velocity profile occur downstream of all pipe components with the
exception of full bore ball valves. Depending on the geometry of the component, the velocity
profile can become flatter than usual or more peaked than usual and/or asymmetric.

In a long straight section of pipe downstream of the disturbance the axial velocity profile will
gradually return to its normal shape, and this will generally require in excess of 30 diameters
of straight pipe. However, it is not necessary for the profile to be fully developed in order for a
meter to read accurately. The length of straight pipe required upstream of a meter is a
compromise between uncertainty and practicality and is dependent on both the nature of the
upstream disturbance and the design of the meter.

The effects of distortion of the axial velocity profile on different meter designs can be
evaluated by using asymmetric profiles described by a function in the form:

u = (1 − r )1 / n + mr (1 − r )1 / k f (θ ) (2)

This approach was first used at the UK National Engineering Laboratory for modelling
multipath flowmeters over 30 years ago [10]. The detailed methodology applied here is
described in a paper by Moore et al [11] and examples of its use can be found in various
published papers [e.g. 7, 11-13].

Figure 5 shows contour plots of the two velocity profiles used here, which are described as
profiles A5 and A8 in Moore’s paper.

1.1

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8

0.7 1.1

0.6

0.5

Figure 5 Iso-Velocity Contour Plots of Profiles A5 and A8

As these profiles do not have rotational symmetry about the pipe axis, the performance of
each meter design is assessed at a range of orientations relative to the profile, as illustrated
in Figure 6 below.

0° 45° 90° 135°

Figure 6 An Illustration of Changing Path Orientation for 4-Path Meters

This allows us to calculate the error values for each design at 0 to 180 degrees of rotation.
The results of these calculations are shown in Figures 7 and 8 for profiles A5 and A8
respectively, where the error is calculated relative to the mean meter factor obtained using
power-law profiles over the range n = 6 to n = 10.

5
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

1.5%
2-path (mid-radius design)

3-path

Error Owing to Profile Asymetry (%)

1.0% 4-path

5-path

0.5%

0.0%

-0.5%

-1.0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Orientation (degrees)

Figure 7 Error Owing to Asymmetry for Profile A5

2.5%

2-path (mid-radius design)

2.0%
3-path
Error Owing to Profile Asymetry (%)

4-path
1.5%
5-path

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%

-0.5%

-1.0%

-1.5%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Orientation (degrees)

Figure 8 Error Owing to Asymmetry for Profile A8

To summarise the data shown in Figures 7 and 8 we can take the root-mean-squared value
of error over all orientations, in order to give a single value that indicates the performance of
each design for each profile. The results of doing this are shown in Figure 9. It can be seen
that in absolute terms the improvement in performance is greatest when moving from two to
three paths and that the difference between four and five paths is less significant.

1.5%

1.4% Profile A5
1.3% Profile A8
1.2%

1.1%

1.0%

0.9%
RMS Error

0.8%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%
2 Path 3 Path 4 Path 5 Path
Path Configuration

Figure 9 RMS Error in Multipath Measurements Owing to Axial Profile Asymmetry

6
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

When there is no swirl present, the 8-path configuration used by Caldon in the LEFM 280C
performs in a similar manner to the 4-path meter with respect to distortion of the axial velocity
profile. The advantage of the 8-path design comes into play when swirl is present in the flow,
as discussed in the following section.

The magnitude of errors shown in Figures 7 to 9 for 2 and 3-path meters suggests that in
order to meet custody transfer uncertainty requirements these meter must either be installed
in locations with ‘good’ axial velocity profiles or be proved in-situ to reduce installation effects.
For these meters satisfying the requirement for a ‘good’ axial velocity profile could easily
require in excess of 20 diameters of straight pipe and would normally suggest the use of a
flow conditioner. Tube bundles are not designed to modify the axial velocity profile so for this
requirement a perforated plate flow conditioner design is preferred.

On the basis of our understanding of effects discussed above Caldon normally recommend
that 2-path meters be used with a flow conditioner, or that the uncertainty budget for the
measurement be expanded to allow for the effects of installation. For that reason we have
limited the following swirl analysis to meters with 3, 4, 5 and 8 paths.

2.2.2. Swirl

When flow is forced to change direction, the fluid then travels with forward motion parallel to
the pipe axis and motion at an angle to the pipe axis. Swirl is the name generally used for
these non-axial components of velocity that are produced downstream of bends and similar
pipe fittings.

Simple single-path ultrasonic meters with two transducers on opposite sides of a pipe section
operate on the assumption that the net non-axial flow in the direction of the path is zero.
Multipath meters have some in-built tolerance for swirl, but as we will see later, they are
limited in terms of what forms of swirl they can tolerate without error.

Single-vortex swirl is a form of swirl that is normally associated with bends in different planes
(i.e. configurations that cause a change of flow direction in more than one plane). Single-
vortex swirl can perpetuate for many diameters downstream of the bends or other pipeline
components that cause it. Some papers and reference books state that single vortex swirl
can still be significant at 100 diameters downstream of its source.

Swirl interferes with the performance of ultrasonic meters by introducing an unwanted

component of velocity in each measurement path. This unwanted component of velocity can
be additive or subtractive. If the non-axial flow velocity is going in same the direction as the
ultrasound when it travels from the upstream transducer to the downstream transducer then
the effect will be to increase the measured velocity. If the non-axial velocity is opposite in
direction to the downstream travel of the ultrasound then the effect will be to decrease the
measured velocity.

Multipath meters provide some swirl compensation by having opposing paths on opposite
sides of the pipe axis. That means that one path will compensate the other for the effect of
the swirl, as illustrated in Figure 10 below. However, this is only completely effective if the
swirl is a single-vortex swirl that is centred exactly on the pipe axis. If the swirl is slightly off-
centre or has a more complex pattern containing multiple vortices, then this form of swirl
cancellation is less effective, as we will demonstrate below. Good illustrations of complex off-
centred swirl downstream of bends can be found in studies where Computational Fluid
Dynamics has been used to investigate meter performance [e.g. 14 - 16].

7
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

1 up
+++ 1 down
+++++

2 up
----- 2 down
---

Figure 10 An Illustration of Swirl Cancellation in a 2-Path Meter

To evaluate the effects of non-symmetrical swirl on multi-path meter configurations we have

used a Taylor vortex equation to simulate a sample of swirl patterns. This equation has
previously been applied in modelling of ultrasonic meters by Yeh and Mattingly at NIST [17].
The Taylor vortex equation is written as

uθ = u0 rv exp − rv2 ( ) (3)

where uθ is the tangential velocity, u0 is the vortex strength and rv = rc/r0, where rc is the
distance from the vortex centre and r0 is the diameter of the vortex. There is a deficiency in
this model in that the tangential velocity is not guaranteed to go to zero at the pipe walls. To
eliminate this problem we have added a multiplying function that has a maximum velocity in
the centre of the pipe and goes to zero at the walls to give

uθ = u0 rv exp − rv2 1 − r 2 ( )( )1/ 15

(4)

where r is the distance from the centre of the pipe normalised to the pipe radius.

Figure 11 shows a contour plot showing the magnitude of the tangential swirl velocity
(normalised to a maximum value of 1) for a vortex of radius r0 = 1, centred at x = 0, y = 0.1R.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.9-1
0.3
0.8-0.9
0.2 0.7-0.8
0.1 0.6-0.7
0 0.5-0.6
0.4-0.5
-0.1
0.3-0.4
-0.2 0.2-0.3
-0.3 0.1-0.2
0-0.1
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
-1
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1

Figure 11 An Example of Non-Centred Swirl

Using the above formula we can evaluate the sensitivity of various path configurations to the
presence of asymmetric swirl. To do this we need to include information on whether the
paths are all in the same plane or not, as illustrated in Figure 12 below. In this section we

8
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

have modelled 3, 4 and 5-path configurations in both parallel and crisscrossed arrangements,
plus the 8-path arrangement described below.

1 up 1 down 1 down 1 up

2 up 2 down 2 up 2 down

3 up 3 down 3 down 3 up

(a) Parallel paths (b) Crisscrossed paths

Figure 12 An Illustration of Path Configurations Showing Parallel

and Crisscrossed Path Arrangements

The Caldon LEFM 240C has a parallel path arrangement, as shown in Figure 1. The Caldon
LEFM 280C differs from the parallel and crisscrossed arrangements illustrated above by
having crossed paths in each of four chordal planes as shown in Figure 13 below.

1 up 1 down
5 down 5 up

2 up 2 down
6 down 6 up

3 up 3 down
7 down 7 up

4 up 4 down
8 down 8 up

Figure 13 An Illustration of an 8-Path Meter Made by Crossing Two 4-Path Configurations

Figures 14 to 17 below illustrate the velocity profiles measured by 3, 4, 5 and 8-path meters
for the case of the asymmetric swirl shown in Figure 11. The swirl is superimposed on top of
a power-law axial velocity profile with n = 10. For these figures the swirl magnitude was set
by making u0 = 0.1U, where U is the mean axial velocity.

1.10 1.10

1.05 1.05
Normalised velocity

Normalised velocity

1.00 1.00

0.95 0.95

0.90 0.90
Profile without swirl Profile without swirl
0.85 Profile with swirl 0.85 Profile with swirl

0.80 0.80
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Path radial position Path radial position

(a) Parallel paths (b) Crisscrossed paths

Figure 14 Measured Velocity Profiles: 3-path Meters

9
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

1.10 1.10

1.05 1.05

Normalised velocity

Normalised velocity
1.00 1.00

0.95 0.95

0.90 0.90
Profile without swirl Profile without swirl
0.85 Profile with swirl 0.85 Profile with swirl

0.80 0.80
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Path radial position Path radial position

(a) Parallel paths (Caldon LEFM 240C) (b) Crisscrossed paths

Figure 15 Measured Velocity Profiles: 4-path Meters

1.10 1.10

1.05 1.05
Normalised velocity

Normalised velocity
1.00 1.00

0.95 0.95

0.90 0.90

0.85 Profile without swirl 0.85 Profile without swirl

Profile with swirl Profile with swirl
0.80 0.80
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Path radial position Path radial position

(a) Parallel paths (b) Crisscrossed paths

Figure 16 Measured Velocity Profiles: 5-path Meters

1.10

1.05
Normalised velocity

1.00

0.95

0.90 Profile without swirl

Paths 1 to 4
0.85
Paths 5 to 8
0.80
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Path radial position

Figure 17 Measured Velocity Profiles: 8-path Meter (Caldon LEFM 280C)

From Figures 14 to 17 above, it is obvious that the measured profile is now non-ideal in each
of the configurations. However, it can be observed that in the case of the 8-path meter, the
profile without swirl is identical to the average profile from paths 1 to 4 and 5 to 8 combined.

The type of data shown in Figures 14 to 17 can also be used to quantify the effects on each
of the configurations analysed. Quantitative analysis has been carried out for three different
swirl patterns using the swirl parameters given in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Parameters Used for Swirl Simulations

Swirl parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Magnitude, u0/U 0.1 0.1 0.1
Vortex centre, x/R, y/R 0, 0.1 0, 0.1 0, 0.2
Vortex radius, rv 1 0.7 0.5

10
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

The quantitative results are shown in Figure 18 below in terms of the absolute value of the
error owing to swirl. These results clearly show that all of the 3, 4 and 5-path configurations
can be significantly affected by non-centred swirl. It is interesting to note that for most of the
cases examined here, the parallel path arrangements outperform the crisscrossed path
arrangements. This is particularly true of the results for the 4-path configurations, which are
of relevance for Caldon meters as the 4-path LEFM 240C has the preferred parallel path
arrangement. This data supports the conclusions from an earlier CFD study of ultrasonic
meters downstream of bends [15].

1.2%

Case 1
Case 2
1.0%
Case 3

0.8%
Swirl error (%)

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0%
3 parallel paths 3 crisscrossed 4 parallel paths 4 crisscrossed 5 parallel paths 5 crisscrossed 8 paths crossed
paths paths paths in-plane
Path Configuration

Figure 18 Summary of Errors Owing to Swirl for Multipath Meters

Although the swirl patterns used here are quite asymmetric they will not cover the entire
range (in magnitude or asymmetry terms) of swirl that is seen in practice. However, what is
important here is that the results quantify the performance of each configuration relative to
one another, as each configuration has been evaluated in exactly the same way. In that
respect it is worth highlighting that the swirl induced error of the 8-path configuration used in
the Caldon LEFM 280C is zero in each case.

These results are supported by experimental data from tests on an 8-path meter downstream
of out-of-plane bends. Figure 19 shows a photograph and schematic of the test set up. The
tests were performed at the Alden water flow laboratory. Two Caldon 10-inch 280C
flowmeters were installed in series approximately 17 diameters downstream of the bends.
Here we show results for the first (upstream) meter.

Figure 19 Experimental Set-Up for Swirl Tests on the Caldon 280C

11
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

Figure 20 below shows the velocity profiles as measured by the meter. It can be seen very
clearly that profiles for paths 1 to 4 and paths 5 to 8 are different owing to the effects of swirl.
Each of these groups of four paths can be taken to represent a 4-path Caldon 240C
flowmeter. It can also be observed that when all of the paths of the 8-path meter are
combined the profile is much more symmetrical. There is still some asymmetry apparent in
the 8-path meter profile, however, it is probable that this is actual asymmetry in the axial
velocity profile as discussed above in Section 2.2.1.

1.3

1.2

1.1
Normalized Velocity

1.0

0.9

0.8 Paths 1 to 4
Paths 5 to 8
0.7
Average of 1 to 4 and 5 to 8

0.6

0.5
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Path radial position

Figure 20 Measured Velocity Profiles in an 8-Path Meter (Caldon 280C)

The effect of the swirl on the performance of the 4-path and 8-path measurements can be
seen in Figure 21 below. The 4-path meters read with errors of a similar magnitude of about
0.12%, but opposite sign. These effects cancel in the 8-path meter with the result that the
errors are all within ±0.05%.

0.5%

4-path meter (paths 1 to 4)

0.4%
4-path meter (paths 5 to 8)
0.3% 8-path meter

0.2%

0.1%
Error (%)

0.0%

-0.1%

-0.2%

-0.3%

-0.4%

-0.5%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
3
Flowrate (m /hr)

Figure 21 Error Versus Flowrate for 4-path and 8-path Meters in Swirling Flow

12
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

3. SUMMARY

The relative sensitivity of the 3, 4, 5 and 8 path meter designs evaluated here can be
summarised in the form of a simple uncertainty analysis, taking the total uncertainty to be

U total = U Re
2
+ U Axial
2
+ U Swirl
2
(5)

where URe is the non-linearity taken from Table 4, UAxial is the average error owing to
asymmetry taken from Figure 9 and USwirl is the average error owing to swirl taken from
Figure 18.

The summary results are shown in Figure 22, ordered from highest to lowest estimated
uncertainty, and are tabulated below for reference.

0.9%

0.8%

0.7%
Estimated Uncertainty (%)

0.6%

0.5%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%
3 crisscrossed 4 crisscrossed 3 parallel paths 5 crisscrossed 5 parallel paths 4 parallel paths 8 paths crossed
paths paths paths in-plane
Path Configuration

Figure 22 A Summary of Relative Sensitivity of a Selection of Path Configurations to the

Combined Effects of Varying Reynolds number, Asymmetry and Swirl

Table 6 A Summary of Relative Sensitivity of a Selection of Path Configurations to the

Combined Effects of Varying Reynolds number, Asymmetry and Swirl

Path 3 parallel 3 criss- 4 parallel 4 criss- 5 parallel 5 criss- 8 paths

configuration paths crossed paths crossed paths crossed crossed
paths paths paths in-plane
Non-linearity 0.23% 0.23% 0.02% 0.02% 0.06% 0.06% 0.02%
Asymmetry
Profile 5 0.23% 0.23% 0.11% 0.11% 0.08% 0.08% 0.11%
Profile 8 0.42% 0.42% 0.20% 0.20% 0.12% 0.12% 0.20%
Average 0.33% 0.33% 0.16% 0.16% 0.10% 0.10% 0.16%
Swirl
Case 1 0.36% 0.36% 0.35% 0.53% 0.36% 0.06% 0.00%
Case 2 0.23% 0.59% 0.18% 0.88% 0.19% 0.20% 0.00%
Case 3 0.33% 1.16% 0.04% 0.66% 0.11% 0.66% 0.00%
Average 0.31% 0.70% 0.19% 0.69% 0.22% 0.30% 0.00%
Utotal 0.503% 0.805% 0.249% 0.710% 0.249% 0.325% 0.156%

13
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

4. DISCUSSION

The performance of multipath ultrasonic flowmeters is a function of the ability of the

mechanical and electronic design to deal with complex variations in flow conditions. Some
fluid dynamic effects can be removed by flow conditioning or in-situ calibration (e.g. using
pipe or piston provers). However, two of the key benefits of ultrasonic meters are their non-
intrusive design and their compact size. It can be argued that if flow conditioning or in-situ
proving are necessary then some of the major benefits of the technology are lost. However, if
flow conditioners are permissible or in-situ proving can be performed then we have shown in
that adequate linearity can be achieved with as few as two paths.

If the full benefits of ultrasonic meters are to be obtained then they must be used without flow
conditioning devices or in-situ proving. In that case they must be able to cope with the
following common features of flow in practical piping systems:

• Axi-symmetric changes to the flow profile (owing to changes in Reynolds number and
pipe roughness)
• Asymmetric distortions of the axial velocity profile caused by bends and valves etc.
• Swirl introduced in to the flow by bends and other components that cause a change
in the direction of flow

5. CONCLUSIONS

Multipath ultrasonic flowmeters can be used for custody transfer of liquid hydrocarbons. In
these applications performance is dependent on the installation conditions and the design of
the meter, particularly in terms of the path configuration.

The analysis described in this paper shows that:

• Meters with four or more paths can achieve better performance than meters with
three or less paths when the flow is distorted by upstream pipe components
• Meters with parallel path arrangements perform better than meters with crisscrossed
path arrangements when non-centred swirl is present
• An 8-path configuration with crossed paths in each of four chordal planes performs
better than any of the other configurations analysed, owing to its ability to cancel the
effects of non-centred swirl

REFERENCES

[1] Kritz, J (1955) “An ultrasonic meter for liquids”, Proceedings of the Instrument
Society of America, Vol. 10, Part 1, Paper no. 55-16-3.
[2] Fischbacher, R E (1962) “An ultrasonic flowmeter for process liquids”, Proceedings
of Flow Measurement in Closed Conduits, NEL, 27-30 September 1960,
Vol. 2, HMSO, Edinburgh, pp. 687 – 700.
[3] Baker, R C and Thompson, E J (1975) “A two beam ultrasonic phase shift
flowmeter”, Proceedings of Fluid Flow Measurement in the Mid-1970’s,
National Engineering Laboratory, Glasgow, UK, 8-10 April 1975, E A Spencer
and W J Ramsay (eds), HMSO, Edinburgh, Vol. 2, pp. 571-581.
[4] Hastings, C R (1968) “LE flowmeter – a new device for measuring liquid flow rates”,
Westinghouse Engineer, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp.183-186.
[5] API (1995) Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 5 – Metering,
Section 8 - Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Ultrasonic Flow Meters
Using Transit Time Technology.

14
 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement
Querétaro, Mexico, 16 – 18 May 2006

[6] Fisher, S G and Spink, P G (1972) “Ultrasonics as a standard for volumetric flow
measurement”, Proceedings of Modern Developments in Flow Measurement,
Harwell, Berks., UK, 21-23 September 1971, pp. 139-159.
[7] Zanker, K J (1999) “The effects of Reynolds number, wall roughness, and profile
asymmetry on single and multipath ultrasonic meters”, Proceedings of the
North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Oslo, Norway, October 1999, pp.
117-129.
[8] Wyler, J S (1976) “Fluid flow measurement system for pipes” U.S. Patent No.
3,940,985
[9] Schlichting, H (1968) Boundary Layer Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 560-592.
[10] Fischl (1974) “The deduction of volume flow in a pipe from ultrasonic transits”, Flow
Measurement Memo No. 139, National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride,
Glasgow, August 1974.
[11] Moore, P I, Brown, G J and Stimpson, B P (2000) “Ultrasonic transit-time flowmeters
modelled with theoretical velocity profiles: methodology”, Measurement
Science and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 12, pp 1802-1811.
[12] Brown, G J (1997) “Factors Affecting the Performance of Ultrasonic Flowmeters”.
Proceedings of the North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Kristiansand,
Norway, 27 – 30 October 1997, Paper 33.
[13] Brown, G J, Barton, N A, and Moore, P I (1999) “Installation effects on ultrasonic
flowmeters”, Proceedings of the North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop,
Oslo, Norway, 25-28 October 1999.
[14] Hilgenstock, A and Heinz, M (1996) “Numerical flow simulation as a tool for
developing and calibrating ultrasonic flowmeters”, Proceedings of FLOMEKO
’96, October 20-24, Beijing, China, pp. 156-161. 67.
[15] Duffell, C J, Brown, G J, Barton, N A and Stimpson, B P (2003) “A New Family of
Ultrasonic Flowmeters, with Improved Performance in Asymmetric Flows,
Produced by using Optimization Algorithms and CFD” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hydrocarbon Flow Measurement, Fluid Control
Research Institute, Palakkad, India, September 2003.
[16] Brown, G J, Coull, C, and Barton, N A (2005) “Installation effect on ultrasonic
flowmeters and evaluation of computational fluid dynamics prediction
methods” Proceedings of the South East Asia Hydrocarbon Flow
Measurement Workshop, 9 – 11 March 2005, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
[17] Yeh, T T and and Mattingly, G E (1997) “Computer simulation of ultrasonic flow
meter performance in ideal and non-ideal pipeflows”, ASME Fluids
Engineering Division Summer Meeting (FEDSM’97), June 22 – 26, Paper no.
FEDSM97-3012

15